Things Republicans Can Never Again Complain About

This paragraph is fake news.

You know, the worst thing about Republicans is the compulsive lying.

Human frailty is as human frailty does; it is not, however, supposed to be an excuse for being perpetually, stupidly, offensively, willfully false.

President Trump lied. He lied about how the raid was planned and executed; he lied about its results.

Honestly, Wellwisher, what do we think you would be saying if Obama had botched up a raid, blamed his generals, and spent his time bawling about the press?

You're so fake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not a chamber. It's the outdoors. The part of the world that's all around the cave.

Take a look at this, for example:

And notice the viewpoint we have on it: from outside, from the big world.

From the world where people know, for example,

- automatically, without even thinking about it, as part of the surrounding world,

- that the military makes all kinds of plans for stuff that it recognizes - from the planning, often - to be a bad idea. Stuff that it then does not do, because it's not a good idea to do it.

And then, as always, increasingly front and center, something like this:

Does that look like a threat, to you? Because it does, to me. Against "the media". And so it becomes a question not of reason and argument, but of power and tactics. So we who worry about the health of the media are worried about power and tactics, and we who worry from a centrist or slightly left perspective worry specifically about the tactics of the very large corporate capitalist powers (that is a faction, with its own identifiable common interests and agenda, in our world).

Take a look: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/at...through-fcc-approval-chairman-says-2017-02-28

And some coverage - back when - from what is described around here as the whiny and extremely left-biased media: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltech...rger-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-for-consumers
Note even in that lay-person and non-expert journalist's report the advance recognition of some key aspects of reality (the material point on which FCC regulation would turn and did turn), the careful separation of likely material confusions (Time Warner is not Time Warner Cable, but a much different entity), and so forth (competent journalism)

- and the stable, optimistic even, and quite conservative presumption: that the DOJ would have a strong interest. Because the DOJ is supposed to have a strong interest in such matters, as central responsibility and major part of its job, since Roosevelt - Teddy Roosevelt. More than 100 years and counting.

Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III is head of the DOJ. His President has declared the media involved, under its current corporate structure, to be an enemy of the American people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just, Y'Know ... For Instance ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

The problem with complaining that there is no consistent standard when reporting both sides of the political divide is that reality presently has a well-known liberal bias. For instance, most people don't like to be called a racist. However, if someone who wants to be and thus behaves in a racist manner disdains being described as a racist, the problem isn't a lack of consistent standards when discussing racism; the problem is being a racist.

Because while it's true that certainty is a rare commodity in the news business, it would seem to require a certain degree of comparative insensitivity in order to fail to distinguish between fake news and mere information you don't want to hear.

There may come a day when liberalism really does run as rampant as conservatives pretend, but by and larger there is a reason why the lowbrow, brute-force, superstitious, greedy crowd congregates in the shadows of traditional greed empowered by monopoly on force operating according to low superstition; but until then, these really are strange fantasies you spin for the sake of self-gratification.

And Steve Benen↱ might be a liberal blogger, but part of what we have here is an excellent comparative framework for assessing narrative. To wit, though you might disdain his narrative, it is derived from the historical record we have, while as much as you might prefer your own narrative, it is derived from make-believe.

There are, for example, important questions surrounding the mission itself. As regular readers know↱, U.S. military officials have told Reuters↱ that Trump approved the raid – the first operation he approved as president – “without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.” He green-lit the mission over dinner at the White House residence, and while the raid was underway, Trump did not go to the Situation Room and did not monitor the developments in real time.

Soon after, Trump aides tried to argue that the mission was the Obama administration's idea, making claims that later turned out to be false.

In an interview with Fox News that aired yesterday, Trump went further, desperately trying to avoid any responsibility at all for the mission that he approved. Asked about the deadly operation in Yemen, the president said↱:

“Well this was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something that was, you know, just, they wanted to do. They came to see me they explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected. My generals are the most respected that we've had in many decades I believe and they lost Ryan.”​

And as far as the success of the mission is concerned, NBC News reported↱ this week that the mission yielded practically nothing of value.

The result is an image of a president who launched a mission without an extensive review, who then tried to shun responsibility for the results while making dubious claims about the raid's value, all before using the deadly incident in a speech.

I don't doubt that Trump has extended his sincere support to Owens' family, but that doesn't erase the president's attempts to shirk responsibility for the mission, his claims that appear to be untrue, and the questions as to why he approved this raid in the first place.​

Seriously, it's been known pretty much from the day after that the Trump administration's attempt to blame Obama was an outright lie.

We get it, Wellwisher. There is no mystery why Donald Trump is attacking the news media so ferociously; your narrative works as long as the rest of the world just doesn't count.

And, yeah, that sounds about like #WhatTheyVotedFor.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "New Trump claims about deadly Yemen raid appear to be untrue". msnbc. 28 February 2017. msnbc.com. 1 March, 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2mtQxEG

—————. "Trump puts deadly Yemen mission back in the spotlight". msnbc. 1 March 2017. msnbc.com. 1 March 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2m9b4h7

Jaffy, Brad. "Watch Trump’s response when asked about the father of slain SEAL William “Ryan” Owens". Twitter. 28 February 2017. Twitter.com. 1 March 2017. http://bit.ly/2mLb1VU

McFadden, Cynthia, William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Robert Windrem. "Yemen SEAL Raid Has Yielded No Significant Intelligence: Officials". NBC News. 28 February 2017. NBCNews.com. 1 March 2017. http://nbcnews.to/2ltL9xi

Rascoe, Ayesha. "U.S. military probing more possible civilian deaths in Yemen raid". Reuters. 2 February 2017. Reuters.com. 2 February 2017. http://reut.rs/2kjS1NS

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What they voted for,
as it stopped by in Mobile, Alabama, December 17th, 2016: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NO2R4cvP...Hwt4tQHACLcB/s1600/08SESSIONS1-superJumbo.jpg

I never understood, before, the function of the hoop skirt.

 

Update: The Correct Numbers

Eighty-five percent was one thing, even if it was, as you pointed out, the wrong number.

The right number?

Eighty-eight percent↱. Well, as of last week. Back when we were looking at the numbers, it was ... er ... ah ... eighty-eight percent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

___________________

Notes:

Gallup. "Presidential Approval Ratings—Donald Trump". 2017. Gallup.com. 20 March 2017. http://bit.ly/2nfn8xS

 

HuffPost did a piece tailor made for this thread - I'm especially looking forward to the letter from Paul Ryan:

Let’s Revisit All Those Times Trump Surrogates Said You Can’t Elect Someone Under FBI Investigation

You know, not for nothing, but back in my day (2016) there was a lot of consensus opinion-having that merely being the subject of an FBI probe was a disqualification for serving as the leader of the free world.
Here’s old Jeb Bush, giving “Fox & Friends” his considered opinion on the matter: “All I’m saying is that she’s under investigation by the FBI. Just pause and think about that. That’s not, that’s a pretty uncommon thing for a presidential candidate. And each and every week it just seems like there’s more information.” https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/15/jeb-bush-tells-fox-hosts-i-only-get-my-news-fro/207992


RUBIO: Now look, I’m not here to badmouth the other Republicans, we have a good group of people running. At a minimum I can say this: None of them is a socialist. None of our candidates is under FBI investigation.


RUBIO: Obviously, we all understand the importance of this presidential race. I would just ask everybody this: Can this country afford to have a president under investigation by the FBI? Think of the trauma that would do to this country.


Presidential candidate and improv comedian Mike Huckabee had thoughts of his own, way back when:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

And more:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Welly well, what’s Paul Ryan going to do about this? If history is any guide, he is going to immediately send a letter to the director of national intelligence, asking for Trump’s access to classified information to be shut down until we figure out what’s going on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He can just copy and paste from the letter he sent to DNI James Clapper: “It would send the wrong signal to all those charged with safeguarding our nation’s secrets if you choose to provide her access to this information despite the FBI’s findings ... I firmly believe this is necessary to reassure the public that our nation’s secrets are secure.”

Better safe than sorry!

Unless nobody cited above actually meant any of this, that is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._us_58d01a73e4b0ec9d29de2c1e?hhp2e6c39t1sv2t9​

 

Things Republicans Can Never Again Complain About

The Democratic Party President playing too much golf. (Sorry if already mentioned.)

 

The New York Times did a great job with this:

If you are president, you may now:
Imply, without evidence, that a television anchor was involved in a murder

Question the authenticity of a recording of you bragging about sexual assault, even though you previously admitted it was real

Say the F.B.I.’s reputation is “in tatters — worst in history” and call members of the intelligence community “political hacks”

Retweet inflammatory and fake anti-Muslim videos from an ultranationalist British group

Call the American justice system a “joke” and a “laughingstock”

Have your lawyer pay $130,000 in hush money to a porn star with whom you had an affair while your wife was at home caring for your new son

Ask, in a meeting with lawmakers on immigration policy, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?,” referring to Africa, and “Why do we want people from Haiti here? Take them out.”

Make fun of a military flag ceremony

Retweet a doctored photo of yourself with the name of a national news organization splattered on the bottom of your shoe

Continue to call for a criminal investigation of your former political opponent, whom you call the “worst (and biggest) loser of all time” a year after the election

Exploit a White House event honoring Native American veterans to mock a senator with a racially charged slur

Change a critical element of your explanation for firing your national security adviser

Shut down a bogus voter-fraud commission because “Democrat states” refuse to turn over necessary information, even though states with both Democratic and Republican leadership did, and for good reason

Tell your rich friends after your tax bill passes, “You all just got a lot richer”

Boast that you have a higher I.Q. than your secretary of state, who fails to deny that he called you a “moron”

Defend your mental competency by saying that you are “like, really smart” and a “very stable genius”

Tell your attorney general not to recuse himself from overseeing an investigation into your campaign, then when he does anyway, call it “a terrible thing”

Falsely claim that your predecessor failed to contact the families of fallen soldiers, and then exploit the death of your chief of staff’s son to defend yourself

Threaten to take away a TV network’s broadcast license for reporting on your deliberations about the nation’s nuclear arsenal

Threaten to use federal tax law to punish a professional sports league for letting its players express political opinions

Tell reporters that “It’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it”

Warn American citizens in Puerto Rico, only weeks after a catastrophic hurricane, that the federal government can’t help them out “forever,” even as you tell victims of a hurricane in Texas, “We are with you today, we are with you tomorrow, and we will be with you EVERY SINGLE DAY AFTER, to restore, recover, and REBUILD!”

Spend one-third of the first year of your taxpayer-funded presidency visiting your own golf courses or properties

While debating policy with lawmakers on live television, accidentally agree to a deal that is the opposite of what your party wants, get corrected by the House majority leader, and then release an official White House transcript that omits the exchange

Insult people, places and things constantly

Say that your former White House adviser and campaign chief has “lost his mind,” after another former adviser and campaign manager is indicted on money laundering and other federal charges

Claim that a new tax bill you support will “cost me a fortune,” even though it will probably save you millions, but who knows since you refuse to release your tax returns

Fail to grasp the basic science of climate change

Take credit for the fact that no one died on a domestic commercial airliner during your first year in office

...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ublicans-Guide-to-Presidential-Etiquette.html